Mark Crosby wrote:> > ---mlbowli1@cord.iupui.edu wrote in part:> < The current evidence seems to support the notion that economic> interference by the state is bad economics, but will this always be> the case? >

The problem with that thesus is that the state does not actually
interfere in economic development. As anyone with a degree or two and
meaningful experience in public administration and public policy can
tell you (if they're honest), economic policy is usually developed by
the special interest groups and lobbys that have the financial ability
and desire to get those members of congress elected who they can then
influence via funds (see bribes?)for their re-election. As a quid pro
quo the special interests get what they pay for.

To a great extent democracy is an illusion under our present campaign
financing system.
The disillusionment of many members of the public toward indirect
representation as it has evolved is possibly one of the reasons for the
advance of the libertarian as well as the right wing "conservative"
movement. Both seem to want to reject the status quo. Their approaches
to the problems in our evolving system seem quite different but I
believe that they are more similar than they would like to acknowledge.

Ultimately, as our minds, cultures, societies and other other tangable
and intangable systems continue to evolve, I suspect that we will
eventually develop the wherewithall to engage in some form of
participatory democracy based on our individual and combined knowledge,
skills and abilities. In such a scheme the criteria for public
representation will (hopefully) be competency based.